A preliminary inquiry cannot substitute a regular inquiry for imposing major penalties, as it violates principles of natural justice and due process.

Order :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings vide Rev- ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dt.4-04-2018 on the file of the 3^rd respondent imposing major penalty withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect and proceedings vide CCLA’s Ref.No.VBSII(3)/491/2018 dt.19- 07-2019 on the file of the 2^nd respondent rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Conduct Rules and also against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release increments along with all consequential benefits to the petitioner withdrawn in view of the proceedings….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as V.R.O. in the year 2008 and at present working as VRO at Gadigarevula village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. While the petitioner was working as VRO at Thamadapalli Cluster, Banaganapalle Mandal, allegation was made against the petitioner that one Putta Balaramudu, S/o. Ramudu, resident of Rallakothuru village of Banaganapalli Mandal committed suicide by self immolation by pouring kerosene infront of Tahsildar office, Banaganapalli on 13.07.2015 at 05:00 P.M., and the petitioner had acted in a lackadaisical manner in resolving the grievance of the said Putta Balaramudu, even though he approached the petitioner very often, which led to agony and forced him to take drastic step of self immolation by pouring kerosene and attempted to suicide in front of Tahsildar office and has done gross negligence in discharging his legitimate duty. Basing on the preliminary enquiry report of the 5^th respondent vide Rc.A/1.Spl/2015, dated 13.07.2015, the 3^rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No.A4/3111/VRO/2015, dated 14.07.2015 and appointed the 4^th respondent as Enquiry Officer to probe the issue. An enquiry report dated 08.05.2017 has been submitted by the 4^th respondent recommending a disciplinary action is required to be initiated against the petitioner by framing charges and also may be reinstated the petitioner in to duty as he has been under suspension two years and posted him to a distant non-local position pending disciplinary action. After that, the petitioner has been re-instated and joined as VRO, Gadigarevula Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. Basing on the report of the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent vide his file No.Rev- ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dated 19.10.2017 issued the articles of charges against the petitioner. In response to the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.11.2017 denying the allegations levelled against him. However, the 3^rd respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner ordered a major penalty vide Rev-ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dated 04.04.2018, withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect as per Rule 9(vi) of A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent. But the 2^nd respondent without considering the factual aspect dismissed the appeal vide CCLA’s Ref.No.VSII(3)/491/2018, dated 19.07.2019, holding that the guilt of the petitioner has been clearly established beyond doubt. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The 3^rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that as per the enquiry officer’s report, the petitioner has been revoked the said order of suspension subject to disciplinary case pending vide Rev-ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)- COLLKRNL, dated 17.06.2017 and further posted as VRO, Gadigarevula Village of Gadivemula Mandal. Thereafter, basing on the 4^th respondent’s report, the article of charges was fr